Re: [tied] Re: Potential Aorist-Perfect Confusion (was: Late P-Alb.

From: P&G
Message: 30921
Date: 2004-02-10

> How do we know they are not reduplicated aorists? I don't know what
> reduplicated aorists look like in Latin.

"In principle it is possible that what looks like a Latin reduplicated
perfect might actually continue a reduplicated aorist. The evidence is
exceedingly slender, however, the best being a surmise that Latin tetigi
"touched" to an n-infix present (tango) is superimposbale on Greek tetago:n
"having grabbed", a form isolated from any paradigm in Greek. ..." Sihler
section 524a.

"Without doubt the reduplicated perfect as a type continues the PIE perfect
... in a few cases the Latin reduplicated perfect could be based on the
reduplicated aorist, which can be seen in Greek and Old Indic .... perhaps
momordi, totondi, spopondi.... Also perhaps from a redulicated aorist is
tetigi < *tetag-, on account of the subjunctive attigas < * ad-tetag-a: to
the root *teh2g. The reflex of a subjunctive on a root aorist should have
a full grade, therefore *atta:gas." Meiser section 136.2